Legal and ethical consent is more than just a mark on a
piece of paper. A scrawled signature is worth nothing if it does not
represent freely volunteered, informed agreement. Consent offered under
duress of coercion, fear or force has no meaning, no value.

The piece of paper signed by Florida mother Heather
Hironimus is not a document of consent but a testament to a
dysfunctional legal system that has become detached from fundamental
principles of justice and human rights and which shames the United
States of America in the eyes of the world.

The courtroom photos record Hironimus at the time of the
signature, bound in handcuffs, sobbing uncontrollably, throwing her head
back with hands clenched in a prayer for support or forgiveness. When
she took the pen from her lawyer, it was subsequent to nine days held in
jail with clear conditions from the presiding judge that she would be
imprisoned indefinitely until she offered that signature.

Those nine days followed three months living in hiding in a
domestic violence refuge. At the time of putting pen to paper, Hironimus
was clearly distraught, distressed and presumably exhausted. Any
document signed at such time has about as much validity as a confession
to the Spanish inquisition.

What was the cause that drove the Florida justice system to
such ignominious lengths? Astonishingly, the entire case hinges on a
single decision resolved amicably by millions of American parents every
year – whether or not to circumcise their sons.

The origins of this saga lie in a parenting agreement signed
by Hironimus and the boy's father, Dennis Nebus, at the time of birth.
The parents were not in an ongoing relationship and they signed an
agreement on shared parenting, which included a clause stating that it
would be the father who would schedule and pay for any circumcision
procedure.

Nebus never took up the option until the child was three
years old. In the intervening time, there were two important
developments. The first was Hironimus learned more about the
consequences of circumcision, including risks of complications from
either the procedure or the anaesthetics involved.
Like ever-growing numbers of American parents, she came to
believe or understand the supposed health benefits to circumcision are
spurious and do not justify the risks and the loss of bodily integrity.

Secondly, and equally significantly, her son grew old enough
to have an opinion as to what should happen to his own penis and
decided he did not want bits of it cut off by a doctor for no sensible
reason.

Nonetheless, in 2014, a Florida judge ruled that in signing
the original parenting agreement, Hironimus had signed away any right to
change her mind at any time, and lost the power to object to the
permanent surgical mutilation of her own son.

For refusing to comply with the judge's ruling, Hironimus
was held to be in contempt of court and still faces the prospects of
criminal charges for interference with custody, a felony offence with a
maximum sentence of five years in prison. Her son, who has been named
widely in press reports and on social media, but whose identity is
formally protected in legal proceedings, is currently in the care of his
father.

In many respects, the Hironimus case stands as a lightning
rod for the developing debate around circumcision in the US. For more
than a century American baby boys were routinely circumcised immediately
after birth. The justifications have changed over time, from prevention
of masturbation to hygiene considerations and latterly to the
prevention of disease, and it seems that as the validity of each is
disproven, a new rationalisation is forthcoming.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is now just about the
only organisation of its type in the developed world that continues to
recommend the practice. Nonetheless, the proportion of American parents
who are refusing to continue the tradition is growing rapidly with
improved awareness and education.

A recent YouGov poll found only 55% of newborn boys are now
circumcised and it is expected that within a generation or two, a clear
majority will be left intact. The same poll found one in 10 circumcised
men in the US regret having had the procedure conducted.

The Hironimus case crystallises an increasingly impassioned
debate between anti-circumcision campaigners (or "intactivists" as they
choose to be known) and the traditions of the medical profession and
cultural habits.

The debate swings on whether circumcision is considered a
permanent medical and surgical intervention that brings to bear the full
framework of ethics and consent or not. In no other circumstances would
a signed parenting agreement, even if considered a legal contract, be
considered unchangeable and permanent consent to surgical procedure at
any time.

The simple truth is such documents are intended for
practical management of finances and access arrangements, and in normal
practice are regularly renegotiated and rewritten as circumstances
change for one or other parent. In no other circumstance would parental
consent for a surgical procedure be considered inviolable and
irreversible even years later.

At least on face value, the son's bodily integrity would
appear to be supported by the terms of the UN Declaration on the Rights
of the Child, which promises to enable him to develop "in conditions of
freedom and dignity". Both mother and child would also appear to have
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on their side, which ensures
their life, liberty and security of person as well as their freedom from
cruel or degrading treatment.

One does not need to be passionately opposed to
circumcision, for oneself or one's child, to see the horrific injustice
that is now being played out in Palm Springs.

I struggle to believe that even the most ardent supporter of
circumcision could accept such a procedure should be inflicted
needlessly upon a terrified and distressed child, or that such an
irreversible operation should ever be undertaken without the express
agreement of both involved parents.

Ultimately it may be practicalities that decide whether this
circumcision is conducted or not – it looks increasingly likely Nebus
will be unable to find a surgeon who is prepared to operate in such
circumstances.

The debate on the ethics and necessity of routine infant
circumcision is not yet resolved but the balance of opinion appears is
shifting rapidly. It may well be that in years to come society will look
back on this habit of our era as a peculiar, if not downright barbaric
anomaly. When that time comes, the lasting, iconic image might not be of
a bleeding baby or a surgeon's scalpel, but the brutalised,
tear-stained face of a heartbroken, handcuffed mother."

About Me

My name is Maya Markova. This blog is my little corner where I write about things that interest me, in as politically incorrect style as I like. I do not claim to be clever, good, free of prejudice and bigotry, broad-minded, enlightened, polite, attractive or superior in any other way. This is not a science blog and I write here what I like, not what people think a "scientist" should write. I try not to bore my readers but of course I cannot guarantee that what I am writing will be interesting for you.